It’s interesting to note that the government has, at times, been quite invested in stopping satire, including Moliére’s works. When the king of France forbade the performance of Tartuffe, he used these words:
So governments can make some pretty ridiculous decisions for the “good of the people.” Satire can serve as a call to the general common sense of the people.
How does forbidding satire actually make the satire more useful?
François Rey & Jean Lacouture (2007). Molière et le roi. Editions du seuil, p76
Satire is all about writing to induce change. In today’s world satire is almost not needed because you can pretty much write whatever you want in America, and even include all the profanity you want. In America you can even write about all the Literotica you want. This means that basically anything goes in modern day books. However, there are quite a few modern day satire books, magazines, and articles. One such famous satire piece is the “Thick of it.” (Peter & Rob, 2008) In this show it dramatizes the laziness of the British government and capitalizes on the thoughts and suspicions of what really goes on behind closed doors in the British government.
Satire therefore is all suspicion, generally funny, twisted, and points out obvious flaws and misdoings. It is not just for entertainment, but to point out that something needs to be done about the situation, and that action is needed to fix the situation. This means that the British people would like more done by the government, and that maybe the government should show some dramatic change to reflect that they are actually working and not just pretending to be. Will it work? Not all the time, but many works of satire are able to compel people to change, and much of this has to do with being able to see things at many different angles, and to tug on the heart strings of many to induce change.
Swift was a British man and much of his works were dedicated to criticizing the higher ups and powerheads of the British government. As you can see from modern day satire, this has been going on now for hundreds of years, so I don’t think he was able to change too much. Swift, on the other hand would be so good at his satire that the audience could directly depict who he was criticizing. This got him into a lot of trouble, but none of his trouble is researchable. However, the two author’s points are that society is evil, harsh, cruel, and so is the government. They wanted more change, more peace, and more freedom, less control from the government, and a better world to live in.
Swift spent a great time amount of time trying to fight against children being treated as a piece of property. Literally the children used to be pieces of property and traded regularly. In the modern day world, NIKE Shoe Company and many other company’s still use child labor. However, unlike in Swift’s times, the children used to not be paid at all, bought, traded, and were equal to live stock and cattle. Swift would write some of his satire about that and point out how ridiculous it is to take somebody made in the image of god, and to treat them like cattle and livestock. Many poor people were treated in a similar fashion.
Peter & Rob (2008) Retrieved from Top 8 examples of Satire on 03/10/2015 fromhttp://peterandrobmakelistsofthings.blogspot.com/2008/08/top-xx-best-examples-of-modern-satire.html
POST 3 RESPOND 110 WORDS and 2 ref
Moliere was criticizing hypocrisy with Tartuffe and Swift was challenging the English rule with A Modest Proposal. Originally for the play Moliere had Tartuffe dressed as a priest, directly attacking religious hypocrisy and its blind followers. Orgon and his mother loved Tartuffe and believed everything he said symbolizing religious followers. Everybody else in the play, however; symbolized nonreligious citizens that realized how hypocritical he was. When Tartuffe thought he was alone he did things that would make Orgon and his mother not like him. That is a big insult to the Catholic Church and its constant controversies about priest’s behaviors and money. I believe that Moliere was trying to encourage the separation of the Church from the government and get the Church to be more honest. He also wanted society to stop blindly following priests by showing in this play that people aren’t always who they say they are.
Swift already had a bad record with the English higher ups and A Modest Proposal just about offended everybody who was not already. Swift’s absurd idea of killing, cooking, and selling children was a direct challenge to the government in regards to the famine in Ireland. Swift wanted the government to do something about the famine and overpopulation or at least try something. They were ignoring the Irish people and not valuing their lives as he clearly states in his proposal, by reproducing just for economy stimulation. By the way English rule was ignoring the famine, I think they might have seen this as a real “modest” proposal!
Satire today is so widespread that it cannot affect the government as much as it did then. A person can open the internet and find an article criticizing virtually anything. Satire is really used now more for political entertainment. Who doesn’t love reading a good article on The Onion?
A Modest Proposal Analysis retrieved by:
Tartuffe Analysis retrieved by: